This one mostly refers to major holy wars in the community which are long gone and forgotten. IIRC, on Linux it's udev all the way; pretty sure ALSA improved a lot, as did netfilter both feature/performance wise.

It's up to individual OSes to choose standards to implement, and since OSS came first, no wonder it might be better represented. But why whine about ALSA? What is wrong with it? And since its the size of the user base of the particular OS/interface that matters, rather than number of venerable Unix-like platforms implementing OSS, doesn't ALSA look good to a potential developer?

- Security features, like jails.

Linux has, and already had, plenty.

- Support for NDIS drivers in the mainline kernel.

Since it is just one step with 'apt-get install', why should one care?

- Support for ZFS in the mainline kernel.
- kFreeBSD may have better performance and/or stability especially in disk/filesystem areas with ZFS.

That 'may have' is hilarious. And btrfs is doing well. I think the only real ZFS feature that could matter for an average/power user is easy snapshots, but there's a way to handle this with Linux, albeit with a couple more commands.

- kFreeBSD is less vulnerable to legal issues.
- kFreeBSD developers often have more..
- FreeBSD kernel might support some..

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We need more FUD and probably reference to that bizarre Linus guy. Don't know about you, but I'm totally not convinced why kFreeBSD at all.